- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up:...
Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 14, 2022 To February 20, 2022
Sebin James
21 Feb 2022 11:00 AM IST
A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court and its subordinate courts.Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 63 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 70NOMINAL INDEXS. Muruganandam v. J. Jospeh & Other Connected Matters, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 63, P. Dhanaseelan v. Union of India & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 64Gnanaloussany Valmy v. The Registrar of Marriages, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 65P. Arumugam v....
A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court and its subordinate courts.
Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 63 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 70
NOMINAL INDEX
S. Muruganandam v. J. Jospeh & Other Connected Matters, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 63,
P. Dhanaseelan v. Union of India & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 64
Gnanaloussany Valmy v. The Registrar of Marriages, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 65
P. Arumugam v. Tamil Nadu State Election Commissioner & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 66
Syed Ibrahim v. Tamil Nadu State Election Commissioners & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 67
Mrs S. Sushma & Ors. v. The Director-General of Police & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 68
M/s.Ramaniyam Real Estates Private Ltd v. M/s.Spencer's Retail Private Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 69
B.Balamurugan v. The Chairman & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 70
1. TP Act Enables Oral Lease; Requirement Of Registered Agreement Under 2017 TN Act Not Of Universal Application: Madras High Court
Case Title: S. Muruganandam v. J. Jospeh & Other Connected Matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 63
Answering a set of questions pertaining to the diverging scenarios that might occur in the eviction of tenants under Tamilnadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, Madras High Court has held that legal recourse on oral tenancies after the commencement of the Act can be availed only through civil courts and not the rent courts under the new act.
Justice R. Subramanian observed that the civil revision petitions that have come up before him, since the rent courts rejected all of them by citing the issue of maintainability, can be broadly classified into six types. The rent courts deemed all of these petitions as not maintainable by observing that there is no registered written agreement of tenancy in all six cases.
The court observed that the requirement of a registered instrument of lease in order to enable creation of a landlord-tenant relationship as given in Section 4(2) of the New Act 'cannot be said to be universal in its application'.
"...Therefore, a suit or proceeding which falls outside the provisions of the New Act are not barred. The scope of a bar created under a special enactment was considered by a Full Bench of this Court in Periyathambi Goundan v. The District Revenue Officer,Coimbatore and others, reported in 1980 (2) MLJ 89, wherein the Full Bench had held that the scope of the bar are interdict imposed by a provision of law must be strictly construed and the Court must ascertain the extent of the interdict imposed by the provision of the statute and limit the interdict to that extent alone."
2. 'All Is Not Well As Regards The Procedure Followed By NIT': Madras HC Sets Aside Appointment Of Asst Professor In Dept Of Architecture
Case Title: P. Dhanaseelan v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 64
Pointing towards the opacity with regards to the selection process followed by the National Institute of Technology (Tiruchirapalli) for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Architecture, the Madras High Court has directed the institute to issue a fresh call for filling the vacancies.
It has also set aside the appointment of one S. Amalan Sigmund Kaushik to the said post.
The bench of Dr Justice Anita Sumanth observed,
'all is not well as regards the method, methodology as well as procedure followed by NIT, in effecting appointments, at least with regard to the Department of Architecture'.
Case Title: Gnanaloussany Valmy v. The Registrar of Marriages
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 65
Criticising an additional sub court in Pondicherry for issuing directions on making alterations in the marriage register without verifying the original documents, Madras High Court observed that courts cannot pass orders without proper enquiry and by solely relying upon the copies of the documents presented by the litigants.
The single-judge bench of Justice S.M Subramaniam was hearing the plea made by a french citizen to correct her name as well as her parents' names in the marriage register. She submitted that she wasn't conversant in English and noticed the error only when an application was made for her daughter's citizenship.
Case Title: P. Arumugam v. Tamil Nadu State Election Commissioner & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 66
Madras High Court has given a strict mandate not to affix posters of election candidates on the walls of public and private property without proper permission with regards to the upcoming Tamil Nadu Urban Local Body Polls.
The first bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy has also warned the candidates who violate the provisions of Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959 of legal action including prosecution.
The bench has also directed Tamil Nadu State Election Commission (TNSEC) and Chennai Municipal Corporation to oversee that the court order is strictly complied with. It has also been directed that the candidates who flout the provisions of the Act and the Tamil Nadu SEC's circular dated 30th November, 2021, must be made to incur the costs of repainting the walls of public/ private property where such posters have been unlawfully affixed.
Case Title: Syed Ibrahim v. Tamil Nadu State Election Commissioners & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 67
Madras High Court has reprimanded BJP functionary Syed Ibrahim for deliberately suppressing material facts regarding a prohibitory order against campaigning in a sensitive area with regards to the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Body Polls.
The first bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the petitioner resorted to 'twist the facts' in the affidavit filed after the court demanded him to state whether a criminal case was registered against him for entering the sensitive area and whether an express notice was served on him.
Case Title: Mrs S. Sushma & Ors. v. The Director-General of Police & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 68
Madras High Court has termed the recent amendment to TN Subordinate Police Officers' Conduct Rules,1964 by the inclusion of Rule 24-C, prohibiting police officers from harassing LGBTQIA+ persons, as a 'milestone' in the approach towards the persons belonging to the community.
The High Court has also accepted the standardised guidelines/ prospective glossary submitted by the state government for referring to LGBTQIA+ persons and instructed the press/ media to follow the glossary in letter and spirit.
7. Madras High Court Imposes Exemplary Costs For Unwarranted Litigation
Case Title: M/s.Ramaniyam Real Estates Private Ltd v. M/s.Spencer's Retail Private Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 69
Madras High Court has imposed exemplary costs on a company for unwarranted litigation while simultaneously holding that the company was entitled to the counterclaim filed. The amount of counterclaim ordered in favour of the defendant company has been set off from the exorbitant costs imposed by the court on the company.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh also observed that the problematic attitude of the defendant is clear from the initiation of unnecessary winding up proceedings against the plaintiff company and the evasive answers given by the authorised signatory of the defendant company in the course of evidence.
Hence, in effect, though the counterclaim made by the defendant was allowed, it was set off completely against the exemplary cost against the defendant.
Case Title: B.Balamurugan v. The Chairman & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 70
The High Court refused to entertain a PIL for strict implementation of medical fees determined by the Government against 50 per cent seats in Private Medical Colleges and Deemed Universities.
The petition filed by Advocate B. Balamurugan alleged that Private Medical Colleges were charging fees to the extent of Rs 7.5- 8 Lakhs when the National Medical Commission has already fixed the fees for Government Quota at Rs. 13,500/-. When the first bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy enquired as to the source of his information, the petitioner counsel replied that he had made enquiries with a few private medical colleges which revealed that the National Medical Commission norms on fee fixation are often flouted by such colleges.
However, the bench noted that the petitioner has not impleaded any of the colleges indulging in such practises or any of the students aggrieved by such fees.
While addressing the members of the bar after assuming office as the 32nd Chief Justice of Madras High Court, Justice Munishar Nath Bhandari remarked that he is cognizant of the problems faced by advocates, judicial officers and staff at all levels. He also pledged to leave no stone unturned to see that justice is rendered even at the grassroots levels.
The Chief Justice was replying to the welcome address by Tamil Nadu Advocate General R Shumugasundara and other dignitaries.
Case Title: B.Balamurugan v. The Chairman & Ors.
The Madras High Court has refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation for strict implementation of medical fees determined by the Government against 50 per cent seats in Private Medical Colleges and Deemed Universities.
The petition filed by Advocate B. Balamurugan alleged that Private Medical Colleges were charging fees to the extent of Rs 7.5- 8 Lakhs when the National Medical Commission has already fixed the fees for Government Quota at Rs. 13,500/-.
Case Title: V. Meghanathan v. Chief Secretary & Ors. & Connected Matters
In a batch of writ petitions seeking the eradication of invasive plant species 'Seemai Karuvelam' (Prosopis Juliflora) across Tamil Nadu, a full bench of Madras High Court has requested the government officials to do what is best for the people of Tamil Nadu, irrespective of what the industrial lobby wants.
The full bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Justice N. Sathish Kumar and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy also directed the State Government to determine the ill effects of the invasive species and take stock of the difficulties faced by other states on account of the same.
The bench has also added that the state government could take note of the measures taken by other state governments including Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh etc., and if they haven't, the TN government could take lead in the matter and find out the best practice
The Supreme Court Collegium in its meeting held on 16th February, 2022 has approved the proposal for elevation of the following Advocates as Judges in the Madras High Court.
12. Tamil Nadu Govt Amends Police Conduct Rules To Prevent Harassment Of LGBTQIA+ Community
The Tamil Nadu Government has notified an amendment to the State's Subordinate Police Officers' Conduct Rules,1964 by the inclusion of Rule 24-C, prohibiting police officers from harassing LGBTQIA+ persons.
The amendment was notified in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette in the exercise of the powers conferred by Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu District Police Act, 1859 and Section 9 of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888.
Case Title: The Kancheepuram Reading and Tennis Club v. The Director-General of Police & Ors.
Madras High Court has started hearing a writ appeal against the insistence by the single bench on the possession of FL2 License for the consumption of Liquor inside Club Premises registered under Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act.
The writ appeal has been preferred by Kancheepuram Reading Club and Tennis Association against the single bench order that rejected their plea for an interim injunction against the police officials who were allegedly harassing its members with constant and unnecessary inspections.
Case Title: S.Sekaran v. The State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors
A new status report has been filed by the TN Director of Information & Public Relations, V.P Jayaseelan, indicating that Chief Minister M.K Stalin has given his consent to constitute the Press Council of Tamil Nadu.
The status report filed before the Madras High Court also states that the process of circulation and approval required from competent authorities for the formation of the Press Council will be completed soon. According to the new status report, the government order pertaining to the 'Tamil Nadu State News Representative Media Accreditation Rules, 2021' will likely be notified after the completion of urban local body polls.
The status report dated 15th February was filed by the Department of Information and Development in pursuance of the court order dated 19th August, 2021, which directed the Tamil Nadu government to create a Press Council of Tamil Nadu (PCTN) that would act as a State-level media regulatory body.
Case Title: Suo moto v. Union of India & Ors.
In a suo motu writ petition for conservation of wetlands in Tamil Nadu, Madras High Court has asked the state government to submit a status report on the proposal to the Union Govt for declaring 13 sites as 'wetlands of international importance' under the RAMSAR Convention.
The matter was taken up in 2017 by the High Court pursuant to Supreme Court directions for the protection of wetlands.
The first bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy has also instructed Additional Advocate General J. Ravindran to clarify why the government has been sitting on the matter of wetlands when the draft proposals have been submitted to it by the State Wetlands Authority.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 68
In a plea that currently considers the extent of measures that can be adopted for the fair treatment of persons belonging to the LGBTQIA+ Community, Madras High Court has pulled up the Union Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment for its lackadaisical attitude in enlisting the NGOs working for the said community.
The single-judge bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh observed that the concerned Ministry has not taken the issue as a 'priority'.
The Senior Panel Counsel had initially sought time to get clarity from the Ministry on extending the scope of the 'Garima Greh' Scheme to all members of the LGBTQIA+ Community and not transgenders alone. He informed the court that he is in constant touch with the respondent ministry as well as the Home Ministry and assured that he will update the court by the next date of hearing.
However, when it came to the matter of NGOs working for the welfare of the LGBTQIA+ Community, the court took serious note of the Ministry's failure to enlist the NGOs and upload the list on their website as per the court directions.